DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-41,388

FUJITSU NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application received on July 8, 2002, a petitioner
requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's
negative determination regarding eligibility for workers and
former workers of the subject firm to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA). The denial notice applicable to workers of
Fujitsu Network Communications (FNC), Inc., Raleigh, North
Carolina, was signed on June 7, 2002, and published in the
Federal Register on June 21, 2002 (67 FR 42285).
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) reconsideration may be granted
under the following circumstances:
(1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously
considered that the determination complained of
was erroneous;
(2) if it appears that the determination complained of
was based on a mistake in the determination of facts
not previously considered; or
(3) if in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a mis-
interpretation of facts or of the law justified
reconsideration of the decision.
The TAA petition, filed on behalf of workers at Fujitsu
Network Communications (FNC), Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina were
engaged in activities related to software programming and
computer support. The petition was denied because the
petitioning workers did not produce an article within the meaning
of Section 222(3) of the Act.
The petitioner attempts to demonstrate that the subject
plant workers produced a specific article. The petitioner
indicates that the product is called "NETSMART" which is an
operating system with a graphical user interface. The petitioner
further indicates that most of the workers were software
developers and some were assigned computer tasks that involved
leasing of the developers computers, upgrading the developer's
computers with the latest versions of third party software, and
regularly developing code into a single functioning unit to be
burned on to a compact disk for distribution.
The functions of programming, technical support and the
other administrative functions depicted by the petitioner are not
considered production activities. A review of the initial
investigation shows no production of an article was ever
performed at the subject facility during the relevant period.
The workers at the subject firm do not produce an article
within the meaning of Section 222(3) of the Trade Act 1974.



Conclusion
After review of the application and investigative findings,
I conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of
the law or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of
the Department of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the
application is denied.

Signed at Washington, D.C., this 1st day of August, 2002.
/s/ Edward A. Tomchick

EDWARD A. TOMCHICK
Director, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance